Chimpanzee brain morphometry utilizing standardized MRI preprocessing and macroanatomical annotations

  1. Sam Vickery  Is a corresponding author
  2. William D Hopkins
  3. Chet C Sherwood
  4. Steven J Schapiro
  5. Robert D Latzman
  6. Svenja Caspers
  7. Christian Gaser
  8. Simon B Eickhoff
  9. Robert Dahnke  Is a corresponding author
  10. Felix Hoffstaedter  Is a corresponding author
  1. Research Centre Jülich, Germany
  2. MD Anderson Center, United States
  3. The George Washington University, United States
  4. Georgia State University, United States
  5. University of Jena, Germany
  6. Jena University Hospital, Germany

Abstract

Chimpanzees are among the closest living relatives to humans and, as such, provide a crucial comparative model for investigating primate brain evolution. In recent years, human brain mapping has strongly benefited from enhanced computational models and image processing pipelines that could also improve data analyses in animals by using species-specific templates. In this study, we use structural MRI data from the National Chimpanzee Brain Resource (NCBR) to develop the chimpanzee brain reference template Juna.Chimp for spatial registration and the macro-anatomical brain parcellation Davi130 for standardized whole-brain analysis. Additionally, we introduce a ready-to-use image processing pipeline built upon the CAT12 toolbox in SPM12, implementing a standard human image preprocessing framework in chimpanzees. Applying this approach to data from 194 subjects, we find strong evidence for human-like age-related gray matter atrophy in multiple regions of the chimpanzee brain, as well as, a general rightward asymmetry in brain regions.

Data availability

The T1-weighted MRI's can are available at the National Chimpanzee Brain Resource Website as well as the direct-to-download dataset we used for our example workflow.The code used in the manuscript can be found at this GitHub repo https://github.com/viko18/JunaChimp

Article and author information

Author details

  1. Sam Vickery

    Institute of Neuroscience and Medicine (INM-7: Brain and Behaviour), Research Centre Jülich, Jülich, Germany
    For correspondence
    s.vickery@fz-juelich.de
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0001-6732-7014
  2. William D Hopkins

    MD Anderson Center, Bastrop, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  3. Chet C Sherwood

    Department of Anthropology, The George Washington University, Washington, DC, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0001-6711-449X
  4. Steven J Schapiro

    MD Anderson Center, Bastrop, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  5. Robert D Latzman

    Psychology, Georgia State University, Atlanta, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0002-1175-8090
  6. Svenja Caspers

    Institute of Neuroscience and Medicine (INM-1), Research Centre Jülich, Jülich, Germany
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  7. Christian Gaser

    University of Jena, Jena, Germany
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  8. Simon B Eickhoff

    Institute of Neuroscience and Medicine (INM-7: Brain and Behaviour), Research Centre Jülich, Jülich, Germany
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0001-6363-2759
  9. Robert Dahnke

    Department of Neurolgy; Department of Psychiatry and Psychotherapy, Jena University Hospital, Jena, Germany
    For correspondence
    robert.dahnke@uni-jena.de
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  10. Felix Hoffstaedter

    Institute of Neuroscience and Medicine (INM-7: Brain and Behaviour), Research Centre Jülich, Jülich, Germany
    For correspondence
    f.hoffstaedter@fz-juelich.de
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0001-7163-3110

Funding

Helmholtz Association (Helmholtz Portfolio Theme 'Supercomputing and Modelling for the Human Brain)

  • Sam Vickery
  • Simon B Eickhoff
  • Felix Hoffstaedter

Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (417649423)

  • Robert Dahnke

European Commission Horizon 2020 (945539 (HBP SGA 3))

  • Sam Vickery
  • Simon B Eickhoff
  • Felix Hoffstaedter

Helmholtz Association (Initiative and Networking Fund)

  • Svenja Caspers

European Commission Horizon 2020 (785907 (HBP SGA 2))

  • Svenja Caspers

National Institutes of Health (NS-42867,NS-73134,NS-92988)

  • William D Hopkins

National Institutes of Health (NS092988)

  • Chet C Sherwood

James S. McDonnell Foundation (220020293)

  • Chet C Sherwood

Inspire Foundation (SMA-1542848)

  • Chet C Sherwood

National Institutes of Health (U42-OD011197)

  • Steven J Schapiro

The funders had no role in study design, data collection and interpretation, or the decision to submit the work for publication.

Ethics

Animal experimentation: The chimpanzee imaging data were acquired under protocols approved by the Yerkes National Primate Research Center (YNPRC) at Emory University Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee (Approval number YER2001206).

Reviewing Editor

  1. Jonathan Erik Peelle, Washington University in St. Louis, United States

Publication history

  1. Received: June 17, 2020
  2. Accepted: November 20, 2020
  3. Accepted Manuscript published: November 23, 2020 (version 1)
  4. Version of Record published: December 8, 2020 (version 2)

Copyright

© 2020, Vickery et al.

This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License permitting unrestricted use and redistribution provided that the original author and source are credited.

Metrics

  • 1,949
    Page views
  • 144
    Downloads
  • 10
    Citations

Article citation count generated by polling the highest count across the following sources: Crossref, PubMed Central, Scopus.

Download links

A two-part list of links to download the article, or parts of the article, in various formats.

Downloads (link to download the article as PDF)

Open citations (links to open the citations from this article in various online reference manager services)

Cite this article (links to download the citations from this article in formats compatible with various reference manager tools)

  1. Sam Vickery
  2. William D Hopkins
  3. Chet C Sherwood
  4. Steven J Schapiro
  5. Robert D Latzman
  6. Svenja Caspers
  7. Christian Gaser
  8. Simon B Eickhoff
  9. Robert Dahnke
  10. Felix Hoffstaedter
(2020)
Chimpanzee brain morphometry utilizing standardized MRI preprocessing and macroanatomical annotations
eLife 9:e60136.
https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.60136
  1. Further reading

Further reading

    1. Neuroscience
    Andrew P Davison, Shailesh Appukuttan
    Insight

    Artificial neural networks could pave the way for efficiently simulating large-scale models of neuronal networks in the nervous system.

    1. Neuroscience
    Jonathan Nicholas, Nathaniel D Daw, Daphna Shohamy
    Research Article

    A key question in decision making is how humans arbitrate between competing learning and memory systems to maximize reward. We address this question by probing the balance between the effects, on choice, of incremental trial-and-error learning versus episodic memories of individual events. Although a rich literature has studied incremental learning in isolation, the role of episodic memory in decision making has only recently drawn focus, and little research disentangles their separate contributions. We hypothesized that the brain arbitrates rationally between these two systems, relying on each in circumstances to which it is most suited, as indicated by uncertainty. We tested this hypothesis by directly contrasting contributions of episodic and incremental influence to decisions, while manipulating the relative uncertainty of incremental learning using a well-established manipulation of reward volatility. Across two large, independent samples of young adults, participants traded these influences off rationally, depending more on episodic information when incremental summaries were more uncertain. These results support the proposal that the brain optimizes the balance between different forms of learning and memory according to their relative uncertainties and elucidate the circumstances under which episodic memory informs decisions.